On Friday, Wal-Mart was in the news. Jonathan Stempel (Reuters) reported
the latest scandal for the corporation whose image makes Simon Legree
look like Mary Poppins. US Magistrate Judge Erin Setser declared there
was no merit in Wal-Mart Stores motion to dismiss "a lawsuit claiming it
defrauded shareholders by concealing suspected corruption at its Mexico
operations, even after learning that a damaging media report detailing
alleged bribery was being prepared."

There's even suspicion that Wal-Mart "violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act."

So you'd think people would avoid associating themselves with the monster corporation.

You would be wrong.

The President of the United States, Barack Obama, took time out from his
hoops, golfing and photo sessions to abuse the office by whoring for
Wal-Mart.

In fact, his visit took place as the judge was denying Wal-Mart's motion.

Despite this, Barack used the media power of the office to highlight the corrupt corporation which was the topic of Robert Greenwald's documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices.

His whoring may have shocked the last few faithful still in the Cult of St. Barack. As Dave Jamieson (Huffington Post) reminded:The White House's coziness with Walmart was a little harder to
imagine around the time of Obama's first presidential run. Back then,
candidate Obama took the standard progressive line of denouncing Walmart
as a low-wage boogeyman. In 2007, the then-senator declared to an
AFL-CIO town hall forum that he wouldn't shop at Walmart stores. "As profitable as they are, there's no reason they can't afford to pay" their workers a higher wage, he said. During Obama's bruising primary with Hillary Clinton, he even lambasted his opponent
for her work on Walmart's board of directors. "If [Clinton staffers]
want to defend her service to one of the least environmentally-friendly,
least labor union-friendly companies in the country, they're welcome to
do that," an Obama spokesman said at the time.

Workers and their representatives didn't miss the visit, they noticed it and they decried it. John Wildermuth (San Francisco Chronicle) reported on
the outrage from labor groups and quoted the president of United Food
and Commercial Workers Union Joe Hansen stating that Barack "will stand
side by side with a company known for low wages, few
benefits, unreliable hours, discrimination against women, violating
workers rights and, yes, environmental degradation."

Jim Kuhnhenn (AP) quoted
the AFL-CIO's Maria Elena Durazo stating, "While he's in California, I
would hope President Obama would speak directly to Wal-Mart employees
and hear from them about their daily struggles to pay the rent and put
food on the table." Durazo can hope but no such meet-up took place.
Barack played footsie with Wal-Mart while he continued to keep labor at
arms' length.

Robert Reich was the Secretary of Labor from 1993 to 1997. He decried the president promoting Wal-Mart:

More to the point, Walmart is one of the nation’s largest and worst
employers – low wages, unreliable hours, few benefits, discrimination
against women, and anti-union. The NLRB is investigating charges it
discriminates against workers who speak out. And most of the rest of us
are subsidizing Walmart by paying for the food stamps and Medicaid its
workers need because Walmart doesn't pay them enough to keep them out of
poverty.

Walmart -- despite its skill in attracting publicity like this -- is a laggard on renewable energy and one of the biggest and fastest-growing climate polluters
on the planet. While many competing retailers are already running on
100 percent renewable power, Walmart’s wind and solar projects supply just 3 percent of its U.S. electricity -- and that’s down from 4 percent two years ago.Walmart’s fossil fuel consumption and climate emissions, meanwhile,
are growing rapidly. In the last year alone, Walmart’s climate emissions
rose 2 percent, or more than 500,000 metric tonnes. It now ranks just
behind Chevron on the list of biggest climate polluters.

Even worse, they're crooks. No, we're not going back to the bribery allegations again. We're talking about the environment:

Walmart Stores Inc. pleaded guilty today in cases filed by federal
prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco to six counts of violating
the Clean Water Act by illegally handling and disposing of hazardous
materials at its retail stores across the United States. The
Bentonville, Arkansas-based company also pleaded guilty today in Kansas
City, Missouri, to violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by failing to properly handle pesticides that
had been returned by customers at its stores across the country.As a result of the three criminal cases brought by the Justice
Department, as well as a related civil case filed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Walmart will pay approximately
$81.6 million for its unlawful conduct. Coupled with previous actions
brought by the states of California and Missouri for the same conduct,
Walmart will pay a combined total of more than $110 million to resolve
cases alleging violations of federal and state environmental laws.

Grasp that less than a year later, less than a year after the FBI issues
the press release about Wal-Mart breaking laws, last week Barack Obama
whored the office of the President of the United States to pimp for the
corporation.

He never did a damn thing to create jobs for Americans but maybe
Barack's finally thinking about the future? His own. Maybe he's setting
up his end for his post-presidency whoring and possibly a seat on
Wal-Mart's board of directors awaits him?

Monday, May 19, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's plans for a
majority government fall by the wayside due to the inability of his
State of Law to win enough seats in Parliament, allegations of fraud
arise as the IHEC issues its (confusing) count, Nouri's War Crimes
continue, talk of a confederation and not a nation may be growing, Iran
wants Nouri to hand over the Ashraf community, and much more.

The April 30th election results are known. or are they?

Reuters reports, "Preliminary results on
Monday showed Maliki won at least 94 seats, far more than his two main
Shi'ite rivals, the movement of Muqtada Sadr, which picked up 28 seats,
and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which won 29 seats." Press TV reports, "Results released by Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission on
Monday showed that the premier’s State of Law alliance garnered 92 out
of 328 parliamentary seats. Maliki’s bloc won 30 seats in the
capital Baghdad alone and won the first spot in 10 out of 18 provinces
overall, while his main rivals are said to have gained between 19 and 29
seats in total." Sinan Salaheddin and Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports 92 as well and point out, "He will still need to approach other parties to piece together a
broader majority coalition to get the first crack at forming a
government as violence rages and instability grows." Duraid Adnan and Tim Arango (New York Times) point out that
these are "initial results -- still subject to challenges from various
political parties" while stating Nouri won 93 seats.

They also note Saleh al-Mutlaq call for the United Nations and other
international bodies to launch an investigation into election
irregularities. National Iraqi News Agency reports:

Spokesman for the Citizen Coalition, Baligh Abu Kalal confirmed on
Monday that the coalition has recordings of fraud acts and breaking the
locks of ballot boxes and what preceded that as the distribution of
lands and the use of public money.

92 or 93 or 94 seats, it's not a winner. Nor are Nouri's votes -- he
ran for Parliament the same as everyone else -- particularly impressive.

The rush to praise him for basically standing still (State of Law got 89
seats in the 2010 elections) is rather surprising since the goal ahead
of the elections for other Shi'ite parties was to break up into smaller
groupings because it was felt that the 2010 elections benefited smaller
political blocs. He managed to prevent much of Anbar from voting.
Disqualifying cities such as Falluja from voting is preventing Anbar
from voting. This was not free and fair elections. At one point, the
US government was publicly insisting that if elections did not take
place everywhere then the election would not be free and fair. But that
assertion disappeared as parts of Anbar were prevented from voting. In
many ways, Nouri's thuggish manner was on display in 2013 when he
sought to punish Anbar Province and Nineveh Province by refusing to
allow them to vote in March 2013 provincial elections.

The White House has privately claimed that it was only their efforts and
those of the State Dept which allowed Anbar and Nineveh to finally vote
in June 2013.

Apparently, the concern was never over the Iraqi people -- the US
government's concern. It was only over being embarrassed publicly by
their proxy and puppet Nouri al-Maliki. That's why the farce of letting
sections of Anbar -- a highly populated and Sunni dominated province --
vote went over so well with hypocrites such as US President Barack
Obama.

SRSG Welcomes the Announcement of the Preliminary
Results of the Parliamentary Elections, Calls for Complaints to be
Resolved through Legal Channels

Baghdad, 19 April – The Special Representative of the United
Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG), Mr. Nickolay Mladenov,
welcomed the announcement by the Independent High Electoral Commission
of the preliminary results of the Council of Representatives elections
held on 30 April 2014.

“As the people of Iraq have now spoken, I call upon all elected
representatives to work together for the future of Iraq”, he said.He reiterated his appreciation of the work done by the Independent
High Electoral Commission and recalled that all potential complaints and
disputes should be addressed through the established legal mechanisms
in a fair and transparent manner and without undue political pressure. Mr. Mladenov reaffirmed the United Nations’ readiness to continue
working closely with the newly elected Members of Parliament in pursuing
the necessary reforms aimed at further enhancing the democratic process
and addressing the country’s priorities.

The Secretary-General welcomes the announcement of the preliminary
results of the Council of Representatives election in Iraq of 30 April
2014. He looks forward to the certification of the final results after
all procedures have been completed, including the adjudication of
possible appeals. The Secretary-General urges all political parties to
engage constructively and in a timely manner in the process of
government formation. The Secretary-General is concerned
about the security situation in Anbar province and urges the government
of Iraq to ensure that military operations against terrorism are
conducted in accordance with Iraq’s international and constitutional
human rights obligations.

The Secretary-General condemns the
deliberate flooding of the Abu Ghraib area and urges all sides to
refrain from actions that result in displacement of populations or cause
environmental disasters. He reiterates his appeal regarding the need to
address the humanitarian needs of the hundreds of thousands of people
affected by the ongoing fighting in Anbar Province.

Press liars are hailing Nouri as a winner. This wasn't a win. He
stated his plan for an I-rule-alone government and not a power-sharing
one. By that goal, he lost. He didn't get the votes necessary for
that. He doesn't even have enough MPs currently to be named prime
minister-designate.

He barely improved on his 2010 standing -- despite all the fraud, the
refusal to let some areas vote, the refusal on April 30th to open the
polls in areas where he was expected to perform poorly -- instead his
military sent people away. And the polls there remained closed for half
a day, only opening after noon.

He rigged the elections and he still came up short. And that's not even
factoring in that the results could change. Or that one outlet says he
got 92 seats in Parliament, another says 93 and another says 94 --
great job, 'Independent' High Electoral Commission in announcing the
votes.

The custom now is to form a group -- the Constitution was tossed aside
long ago -- so now the move will be to try to form groupings and blocs.
The one with the most seats in Parliament is supposed to have a member
named prime minister-designate and then that person has 30 days to form a
Cabinet. That means nominating people and getting Parliament to vote
for them.

Press liars love to lie for Nouri. So when he fails to form a Cabinet,
they lie and say the Constitution says nothing about a full Cabinet.
That's because it's obvious to any fool -- even those with press
passes. You move from prime minister-designate to prime minister solely
by forming a Cabinet. This is the sole test. If you can do that,
you're up to the leadership aspect.

If you can't do that, the President of Iraq names another person prime minister-designate.

A partial Cabinet is not meeting the requirement.

But that's the Constitution and the reality is that the United States picks Iraq's prime minister.

That's not written into the Iraqi Constitution.

But it's what they did in 2006 when the Bully Boy Bush administration
refused to allow the Parliament to name Ibrahim al-Jafaari prime
minister. BBB insisted on Nouri al-Maliki.

In 2010, there was no way to give Nouri a second term. Not constitutionally.

So Barack Obama's administration came up with a legal contract, The Erbil Agreement, to give Nouri a second term.

Barack spit on democracy and pissed on the Iraqi people with that one.

Despite voting in March 2010, the determination of who would be prime
minister would come via a backroom contract -- brokered by the US --
that would give Nouri a second term.

It condemned Iraq. Not just because it put Nouri in charge but also
because Barack broke his word. After his envoys insisted the contract
had the full support and weight of the US government behind it (and
Barack made that promise to Ayad Allawi over the phone -- personally
made it), the White House looked the other way as Nouri refused to honor
his promises in the contract.

The contract didn't just say, "Nouri gets a second term as prime minister."

To get that, Nouri had to make promises to the various political blocs.
And he used the contract to get a second term and then refused to honor
it, has his attorney declare it was illegal and the US government,
Barack Obama, stabbed the Kurds in the back, stabbed Iraqiya in the
back, stabbed the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq in the back, stabbed
Iraqi Christians in the back . . .

You only believe Barack keeps his word if you're a partisan whore.

And it's disgusting to see those people lie about all the great things Barack's done in Iraq.

He's destroyed the country.

Not by pulling out. (All US forces never left.) But by backing a known
thug who was known to run secret prison and torture chambers. That's
who Barack hopped into bed with in 2010. Shame on him.

All of Iraq's current political crises stem from The Erbil Agreement and
Nouri's refusal to honor the legal promises he made in that contract.

But it's also difficult to talk about because the process has never been what it outlined in the Iraqi Constitution.

And few want to get honest about that.

A lot of hypocritical Americans want to point their fingers at the
Iranian government and its influence on the proceedings but they're
hypocrites and useless because they refuse to hold the US government
accountable -- something which, by the way, is the expectation of
citizenship in a democracy: Holding your own government accountable.

But there is little accountability for what this administration has done to Iraq.

Senator Robert Menendez was right to refuse to arm Nouri last year. But
the White House pressured and pressured and Menendez caved.

And now Nouri uses those weapons to terrorize the Iraqi people.

And why the hell would that be a surprise?

His first term was most noted for his running secret prisons and torture chambers.

Why would anyone be surprised that, given weapons, he would use them to
attack the same Sunni population he was falsely imprisoning and
torturing?

Those tolls aren't stagnant. Every day they inch up a little more. And
while 10 or less of both the White House was willing to live with, this
has now dragged on for over five months -- Nouri's assault on Anbar --
and the numbers have climbed with it which is why US Vice President Joe
Biden raised the issue with Nouri on Friday.

Raising the issue doesn't wipe away the US government's complicity and
participation in Nouri's ongoing War Crimes. They are a partner in
those War Crimes. They continue to arm Nouri. The US government is in
violation of international law, of numerous treaties the US government
has signed on to and in violation of the Leahy Amednment which prohibits
pretty much all the actions the US government is currently engaged in
with Nouri's government. Prohibited actions include, but are not
limited to, the training (in Jordan) that the US military is currently
providing to Iraqi forces, the brigade of Special Ops who are providing
intel and training to Iraqi forces (providing this from inside Iraq),
the weapons the US government is sending Nouri and the drone information
the CIA is providing Nouri with.

With Nouri killing civilians, those 'cooperations' and much more are
outlawed by the Leahy Amendment. By international law and the treaties
the US government has signed off on, those 'cooperations' are aiding and
abetting Nouri in War Crimes -- meaning the US government is legally a
co-conspirator in the act of War Crimes within Iraq today.

Iraq has two choices: Keep fighting the Sunni insurgents in Anbar and
hope it will not further edge the country toward a full-scale civil
war; or respond to the Sunni grievances by allowing Sunnis self-rule and
greater autonomy in the majority-Sunni province. Anbar is Iraq’s
largest province, and a base for the largest insurgency movement since
the withdrawal of US forces in 2011. Iraqi government forces are already losing control over the Sunni
areas, and the Shiite-led government forces are not likely to regain
command anytime soon. So why not make it official and recognize the
Sunni populated provinces as autonomous regions?

That's not the only advocating today for autonomy in Iraq's provinces.
The Kurdistan Regional Government is a semi-autonomous region made up
of three provinces (according to Baghdad's central government but the
KRG split one province up into two). Daily Sabah reports:

A top Iraqi Kurdish lawmaker has urged the newly elected parliament to
change the constitution to pave the way for the creation of an Iraq
confederation."The House of Representatives needs to amend the constitution to allow a
confederation because it is the ideal solution for Iraq's problems,"
Deputy Parliament Speaker Aref Tayfour said in a statement on Sunday."This [demand] is the right of the Kurdish people who have suffered for
decades under successive totalitarian regimes," he added.

The move is one then-Senator Joe Biden advocated for up until early 2008.

Iraq’s
political groups appear headed for a showdown over whether Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki should stay for a third term, following the
April 30 polls that his Shiite-led State of Law bloc says it swept.In order to stay in his post, Maliki needs the support of the
country’s powerful Sunnis and Kurds, as well as fellow Shiites that his
party has alienated with its policies. But none appears ready to offer
such support.The Sunni al-Watania bloc said on Sunday it would not allow
Maliki to stay in for a third term, the powerful Shiite Sadrist bloc
said it was also opposed and the autonomous Kurds, who tried to engineer
an unsuccessful “no confidence” bid against Maliki during his second
term, have no love lost for the premier.Iyad Allawi, head of the al-Watania bloc, said that a large
part of the problems in Iraq could be resolved by replacing Maliki.
Allawi said that Maliki staying in power was a “red line” for his bloc,
which is not ready to allow it.

Notice how few outlets will note the above in their rush to declare a
third term for Nouri a 'done deal.' It may very well be a done deal
but, if it is that, it's due to the fact that the US government is yet
again insisting on Nouri for prime minister. Abdul Rahhan al-Rashed (Arab News) offers this evaluation of Nouri's leadership, "Of course, the multitude of political powers, no matter how small they
are, reflect the sorry state of Iraqi politics. The administration of
Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki is to be blamed for the current situation.
Although he stayed in power for eight years, he failed to help Iraqis
reach reconciliation, particularly after the US pulled its troops out of
Iraq. Instead of joining the Iraqis in broader and larger forces, it
exercised the policy of exclusion and marginalization." Duraid Adnan and Tim Arango (New York Times) offer a lengthy look at the results and note:

It was the United States government that gave crucial support to Mr.
Maliki when he became prime minister in 2006, and again, though with
greater reluctance, in 2010. Now, though, many argue that Mr. Maliki has
divided the country, pursuing policies like the mass arrest of Sunnis
in the name of fighting terrorism, that have heightened the country’s
sectarian divisions and brought the country to the brink of another
civil war.

In other US government failures, AFP reports, "Iran's judiciary chief Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani has called on his Iraqi
counterpart to extradite exiled Iranian opposition members so that they
could stand a "fair trial" in Tehran, media reported Sunday." The exiled opposition refers to the Ashraf community.

As of September, Camp Ashraf in Iraq is empty. All remaining members of the
community have been moved to Camp Hurriya (also known as Camp Liberty).
Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were welcomed to
Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp
Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US
invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations
with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the
residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that
US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person
under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the
Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks. The Bully Boy Bush
administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on
the books but they grasped that one. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush
administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they
would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp
repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009
Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer
entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents,"
Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later,
on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at
least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six
residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They
were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor
health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011,
Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault
took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way,
"Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within
the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who
tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of
the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and
more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and
other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a
committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on
other occasions when the government has announced investigations into
allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the
authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions
whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Those weren't
the last attacks. They were the last attacks while the residents were
labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept. (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.) In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of
Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva
Conventions." So the US has an obligation to protect the residents.
3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf. They have moved to Camp Hurriyah
for the most part. A tiny number has received asylum in other
countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was
attacked Sunday. That was the second attack this year alone. February 9, 2013, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah. Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured. Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of
Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls
terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an
Iraqi official release." They were attacked again September 1, 2013. Adam Schreck (AP) reported
that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf
residents. In addition, 7 Ashraf residents were taken in the assault. Last November, in response to questions from US House Rep Sheila Jackson Lee,
the State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran Bureau of
Near Eastern Affairs, Brett McGurk, stated, "The seven are not in Iraq." McGurk's sworn testimony wasn't taken seriously. Once a liar and a cheater . . .

The US government refuses to honor its legal obligation to protect the
Ashraf community and Jonathan Winer, the person appointed to oversee
resettlement of the Ashraf community to places outside of Iraq, is
either unable or unwilling to do the job. While the foot dragging
continues, the Ashraf community is at risk. Maybe even more so when
Nouri wants Iran to back him for a third term as prime minister?

About Me

I'm a black working mother. I love to laugh and between work and raising kids, I need a good laugh. I'm also a community member of The Common Ills. Shout outs to any Common Ills community members stopping by. Big shout out to C.I. for all the help getting this started. I am not married to Thomas Friedman, credit me with better taste, please. This site is a parody.